 Poster: A snowHead
|
As an early intermediate skier weighing 66kg, which of the above (or something else fairly cheap) would you recommend ? Ski 98% on-piste, mostly easy reds and blues with the occasional easy black when conditions are perfect. Not catching an edge is a priority for the sake of not ruining my kids' holiday, but would also like something that will not wobble too much at speed. Lightness also a bonus for when I am carrying three sets of skis !
All help much appreciated, especially at this quiet time of year on here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Have you considered the K2 Apache Crossfire - its a great Piste Ski and very stable when cracking on a bit - the latest model is IMO better stability wise than the prior models - not the lightest but then thats where the stability comes from. You should find some decent deals around now
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
They should all be OK. The salomons have a lighter feel, the Rossignol and the K2 fell more "damp", maybe a good thing for you. Length should be more important that the model, between those three - for your needs, i'd go with a 160-165 lenght. Personally I'd go for the Rossignol, but the Salomons might be lighter/
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Thanks for the replies.
In the end I've gone for the K2 Hellfires, due to availability at a decent price and suitability for a lightweight early intermediate. It is apparantly better suited to soft snow than hardpack whereas I would have preferred the other way round but beggars can't be choosers and at least I won't be left with zero choice at the hire shop which has happened to me a few too many times.
At some point I'd like the opportunity to compare a "light" feeling ski with a "damp" one to see which I prefer.
Now I've got six months to find a well padded ski bag. Is the quoted length for a ski bag the usable length or the gross length ie. would a "170 cm" bag be fine for my soon to arrive 163s ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Enjoy them, I don't think that a ski with a 68 mm waist is really for soft snow, they shoud be great for you. The bag should be fine (170 should fit 170 skis)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Although they are sold as 163cm long, they are in fact 157.5 cm long. I thought they looked a little shorter than I was used to which is why I measured them - at least it means they should fit easily into the 165cm bag I bought.
Do skis generally measure shorter than the quoted length ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
will the hellfires be suitable for a heavier skier 0f 92kg 5'9" ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think at 92kgs you'd be better off with a stiffer ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
